Saturday, January 16, 2016

LOS ANGELES CA - A PRECIOUS 4-POUND CHIHUAHUA ADOPTED 6 YEARS AGO WENT TO WORK WITH ITS OWNER AT HER BARBER SHOP AND WAS SNATCHED IN THE DOORWAY BY A "GOOD" PIT BULL WALKING BY ON A LEASH AND KILLED

The Los Angeles Department of Animal Services opened an investigation Friday into the mauling death of a 4-pound Chihuahua in San Pedro, killed as her owner watched in horror when a passing PIT BULL snatched the dog in its mouth and shook her like a toy.

Investigators planned to interview owner Valerie Shipp, and locate the estimated 80-pound dog to determine if a hearing should be held to weigh the dog’s potential threat to the community.

“We will probably consider, even though the dog was on a leash, could it be considered a potentially dangerous animal?” said Mark Salazar, director of field operations.

The frightening death in the doorway of Shellback Barbers at 1013 W. 23rd St. occurred about 3 p.m. Tuesday as Valerie Shipp’s 4-pound dog, Leche, spent the day inside her business as she typically did. Leche, who mostly stayed inside a crate, wandered over to the doorway to greet the pit bull as a woman walked the animal along the sidewalk on a leash.

“The next thing I know, that thing lunged and grabbed my dog by the neck and started shaking her like she was a toy,” Shipp said. “Everything was happening so fast. I went into shock. I felt I was watching something, but my brain wasn’t registering it.”

Shipp’s apprentice, a 27-year-old barber student named Andrew, said neither dog barked or growled. Andrew asked that his last name not be published.

The pit bull, he said, was wearing a shirt designed to look like a “muscle” T-shirt, something a bodybuilder might wear.

“She allowed her dog to smell Leche,” Andrew said. “As soon as the dog bit down, she started screaming. The dog was on all fours just shaking Leche in its mouth.”

The woman screamed, grabbed hold of the pit bull and bear-hugged it as the dog continued to shake the Chihuahua in its mouth. Quarters flew out of the walker’s pockets as if she had been on her way to do her laundry, and she became soiled with feces as one or both of the dogs defecated, Andrew said.

“I ran up and kicked the dog in the stomach,” he said. “It was like hitting a punching bag. It did nothing.”

Andrew stomped on the dog’s throat in an effort to free Leche from the pit bull’s jaws, trying to avoid kicking the woman in the face as she rolled on the ground with her arms around it.

Shipp said she stood frozen in shock, unable to move.

“I’ve never felt so helpless in all my life,” she said. “It was the most helpless feeling.”

Andrew said he was unsure how Leche eventually was freed. He picked up the bloody Chihuahua, which had gaping wounds, and placed her on a bench outside the barbershop. Barely alive, she died there.

The pit bull, he said, stood calmly nearby as if nothing had happened. Andrew yelled at the woman to leave, placed Leche in a plastic bag in a box in the bed of Shipp’s truck, and got soap and water to clean the blood and feces from the sidewalk.

“This really, really upset me,” Andrew said. “I went home and my 2-year-old son was sleeping. I just sat in the living room and didn’t turn on the TV. Just sat there. Felt sick to my stomach.”

Shipp said her dog had no chance. She called seeing Leche’s body inside the pit bull’s mouth the most horrible thing she’d ever witnessed.

Shipp rescued the white dog when she was 11 months old and kept her for six years. Andrew said the dog helped calm children who didn’t want their hair cut, and she often sat at the feet of customers in the barber chairs.

A lover of animals, Shipp said the pit bull needs to be quarantined, but she did not want the dog put down. The owner, she said, apparently lives nearby.

Attempts to contact her were not successful.

Calling the pit bull a danger, Andrew said he believes it should be put down. The dog could have killed a child, he said.

“Everything happened so fast and made me feel so helpless,” Andrew said. “I’m now holding my son so incredibly close to me.”

This beast shook another dog to death, why is it even a question whether it ought to be put down? "could it be considered a potentially dangerous animal"? WTF?! Duh - YES!

Of course, considering how many proven man-killers have been spared the needle I shouldn't be surprised when a cute little chihuahua is considered an acceptable loss. Pit advocacy is out of control... are people just getting more and more stupid over time? It seems like it.

I have some ideas as to what's wrong with people who would own an animal like a pit bull...but I'm not going to put it into words here. How about if you own 4 and keep pumping out more litters that are larger than goats? But I can't own a goat on this city property but I could keep 50 pit bulls.....I have lots of choice words for pit breeders !!! And I have a few choice words for city officials who would keep letting this happen.

THE CODE OF ALABAMA - 1975

Title: 6 CIVIL PRACTICE

Section 6-5-120

Defined.

A "nuisance" is anything that works hurt, inconvenience or damage to another. The fact that the act done may otherwise be lawful does not keep it from being a nuisance. The inconvenience complained of must not be fanciful or such as would affect only one of a fastidious taste, but it should be such as would affect an ordinary reasonable man.

(Code 1907, §5193; Code 1923, §9271; Code 1940, T. 7, §1081

Section 6-5-121

_____________________

Distinction between public and private nuisances; right of action generally.

Nuisances are either public or private. A public nuisance is one which damages all persons who come within the sphere of its operation, though it may vary in its effects on individuals. A private nuisance is one limited in its injurious effects to one or a few individuals. Generally, a public nuisance gives no right of action to any individual, but must be abated by a process instituted in the name of the state. A private nuisance gives a right of action to the person injured.

Use of force in defense of a person.

(a) A person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he or she may use a degree of force which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary for the purpose. A person may use deadly physical force, and is legally presumed to be justified in using deadly physical force in self-defense or the defense of another person pursuant to subdivision (4), if the person reasonably believes that another person is:

(1) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force.

(2) Using or about to use physical force against an occupant of a dwelling while committing or attempting to commit a burglary of such dwelling.

(3) Committing or about to commit a kidnapping in any degree, assault in the first or second degree, burglary in any degree, robbery in any degree, forcible rape, or forcible sodomy.

(4) In the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or has unlawfully and forcefully entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or federally licensed nuclear power facility, or is in the process of sabotaging or attempting to sabotage a federally licensed nuclear power facility, or is attempting to remove, or has forcefully removed, a person against his or her will from any dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle when the person has a legal right to be there, and provided that the person using the deadly physical force knows or has reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act is occurring. The legal presumption that a person using deadly physical force is justified to do so pursuant to this subdivision does not apply if:

a. The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner or lessee, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person;

b. The person sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used;

c. The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or

d. The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer acting in the performance of his or her official duties.

(b) A person who is justified under subsection (a) in using physical force, including deadly physical force, and who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and is in any place where he or she has the right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground.

(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a), a person is not justified in using physical force if:

(1) With intent to cause physical injury or death to another person, he or she provoked the use of unlawful physical force by such other person.

(2) He or she was the initial aggressor, except that his or her use of physical force upon another person under the circumstances is justifiable if he or she withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to the other person his or her intent to do so, but the latter person nevertheless continues or threatens the use of unlawful physical force.

(3) The physical force involved was the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law.

(d) A person who uses force, including deadly physical force, as justified and permitted in this section is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the force was determined to be unlawful.

(e) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force described in subsection (a), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force used was unlawful.